Search

European Union law has curtailed the traditional discretion Member States have in ordering non-nationals to leave their territory. Although Directive 2004/28 (the Citizenship Directive) has enhanced the system of protection afforded to offending European Union citizens, it still contains a number of cracks that lead to policy incoherence and gaps in rights protection. This is evident in the first rulings on Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38 concerning the deportation of offending EU citizens. These issues also threaten to transform European Union citizenship from a fundamental status into a thin overlay that, under pressure from national executive power, loses its effect and significance. To be sure, EU citizenship has demonstrated that community belonging does not have to be based on organic-national qualities, cultural commonalities, or individuals' conformity to national values, but the continued deportation of long-term resident Union citizens makes nationality the ultimate determinant of belonging. The subsequent discussion suggests possible remedies and makes recommendations for institutional reform.

Since long time ago, Indonesia contributes to one of the largest Muslim scholar graduates in the world, these scholars are not only recognized in their countries, but are recognized throughout the world. They are Nuruddin Ar Raniri (Aceh), Sheikh Nawawi al Bantani (Banten), Khalil Bangkalan (Madura), Sheikh Muhammad Arsyad al Banjari (South Kalimantan), Sheikh Yusuf al Makassari (South Sulawesi), Sheikh Ahmad Khatib al Minangkabawi and Muhammad Jamil Jambek (West Sumatra), Sheikh Mahfudz Tremas (Java), following Hadhratus Sheikh KH. Hasyim Asy'ari (founder of Nahdatul Ulama), KH. Ahmad Dahlan (founder of Muhammadiyah), Prof. Dr. Hasbi ash- Shidiqqey (initiator of Indonesian jurisprudence), Prof. Buya Hamka, and so on. The number of scholars in Indonesia will never be exhausted to be studied, because scholars always grow and develop in the community. Some of the scholars have written their biographies, but many of them have not yet been written. The absence of written sources (reading) about the scholar makes the public not familiar with it. So the purpose of writing this short biography is to find out a short biography of one of the scholars, namely Dr. Muhammad Nawawi Yahya Abudrrazak Al Majene, from Mandar, West Sulawesi. Nawawi Yahya is known by the local people by the name of Puang Masser, because most of his life was spent in Egypt in the context of studying. From the undergraduate program until the doctoral program was completed in Egypt. Nawawi Yahya or Puang Masser managed to write a dissertation entitled "Az Zakah wa an Nadzum al Ijtima'iyah al Mu'ashirah", Zakat and the Order of the Contemporary Society. What's interesting about the dissertation is its thickness reaches 3,593 pages, which is divided into six chapters. The work has now been published by the Research Center for Literature and the Religious Khazanah of the Indonesian Ministry of Religion's Research and Development Agency. This study used interviews, observations, and documentation in collecting data as well as qualitative research in general.

The Law & Society Reader II. Edited by Erik Larson and Patrick Schmidt. New York: New York University Press, 2014. 440 pp. $29 paper.This is the second reader collecting work that has been published in the Law and Society Review. The first reader, edited by Richard Abel, a founder of the law and society enterprise, covered scholarship from the inception of the Review in 1966 until 1995 when the reader was published. Abel's collection, like the Review itself, the first meeting in Buffalo in 1975, and the first international meeting in Amsterdam in 1991, marked a milestone. By the mid-1990s, scholars associated with the enterprise declared their work ready to anthologize.The articles in the second volume date from the late 1990s and run up to a few years ago. Thus, they cover a somewhat shorter period of time. The volume is edited by professors Erik Larson and Patrick Schmidt, both from Macalester College, where they are co-directors of the legal studies program. Their collection contains 43 reprinted and edited articles. This volume is perhaps less a stage in the development of the law and society enterprise than its predecessor and more of a sequel.In the Larson and Schmidt volume, there are familiar ideas about how to do social research, like counting and interviewing. They receive contemporary expressions in which they are developed and tweaked. There are also newer methods, like ethnography and the focus on constitutive law, which are tested and elaborated but also introduced and justified against the standards of the movement's relatively recent past.Although the volume does not reprint material from the first reader, it contains updated classics, like Joel Grossman, Herbert Kritzer and Stewart Macaulay's "Do the 'Haves' Still Come Out Ahead?" and what are certain to become classics such as Osagie K. Obasogie's "Do Blind People See Race? Social, Legal, and Theoretical Considerations."There is concern about crime and police always present in law and society scholarship. But not as much as there would be in a volume published now and not as much as there was in the early years. There is important work in this area by Lisa Frohman and Kitty Calavita but some major figures, like Tracey Meares of Yale Law School, who publishes in law reviews and works on policy questions, are missing because the source of these papers is "the Review."There is attention to the environment, as one would expect, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) issues. There are some creative sections, like one on "emergent institutions" (neonatal care, truth and reconciliation, genital cutting laws). There is a section about the use of ideas in legal disputes. And there are some interesting groupings, like American Indians and fat people or blind people and women in denim, that cause one to pause in looking over the collection. But the collection maintains some of the traditional affinities like violence against women and genital cutting.The collection adds ethnography to the positivist framework that first engaged Law & Society scholars and also legal consciousness. …

Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca published Traite de l'argumentation: la nouvelle rhetorique in 1958, a work that has since come to represent the revival of rhetoric, helping to prompt the rhetorical turn in twentieth-century thought. The influence of their work is seen in a host of disciplines, including rhetoric, philosophy, jurisprudence, communication studies, critical theory, argumentation and informal reasoning. To commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the appearance of the Perelman Olbrechts-Tyteca magnus opus, John Gage, Jim Crosswhite and I collaborated to host international conference at the University of Oregon on May 17-20, 2008. Featured speakers at the conference included Jeanne Fahnestock, University of Maryland; Alan G. Gross, University of Minnesota; Michael C. Left, University of Memphis; Perelman's daughter Noemi Mattis Perelman; Francis J. Mootz III, Dickinson School of Law, Pennsylvania State University; Christopher W. Tindale, University of Windsor; and Barbara Warnick, University of Pittsburgh. Over 100 papers were presented at the conference on a variety of topics, including: argumentation, informal reasoning, legal argument and justice, rhetoric and human rights, and ethical rhetoric and communication. Dale Hample has generously offered me the opportunity to select from among the conference papers those the readers of Argumentation and Advocacy would find informative on issues related to argumentation theory and practice. The four essays in this special volume represent significant thinking about the new rhetoric, and the high quality of scholarship we witnessed at the conference. Three of the four essays are based on original archival research, and the author of the fourth provides his experience teaching Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's argument theory with a distinguished philosopher and the responses of his students. Jim Crosswhite, author of the lead article, is one the best readers of Perelman and is well known for his Rhetoric of Reason (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), which the Modern Language Association awarded the Mina P. Shaughnessy Prize. His essay in this special issue extends his thinking about the new rhetoric. For scholars and teachers of argument, his essay will be a significant contribution. He highlights the limitations of argument modeling, and illustrates the need for argument theory to better develop the sources of argument invention. He juxtaposes the Toulmin model with Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's theory of argumentation. While the former is static, decidedly unrhetorical, the latter, Crosswhite maintains, is less a model and more a philosophical effort to set the boundaries of argument and the sources of argument invention. Enacting Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's agenda, Crosswhite reflects on his concrete experience teaching a Perelmanian perspective of argumentation in collaboration with philosopher Mark Johnson, co-author of Metaphors We Live By, and student evaluations of his efforts to use the new rhetoric in the classroom. Perelman was a Jew, a biographical and cultural fact influencing the new rhetoric. Andreea Deciu Ritivoi and Janice W. Fernheimer consider both argument theory in the new rhetoric and the contested nature of twentieth-century Judaism in their essays. Ritivoi is the author of the well-reviewed Paul Ricoeur: Tradition and Innovation in Rhetorical Theory (State University of New York Press, Albany, New York, 2006). She provides a new interpretation of what Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca believed was their most innovative contribution to philosophical thinking, the notion of dissociation. She considers dissociation in both its pluralistic and dichotomous expressions. The framing of the post-World War II Romanian Diaspora and the Aron-DeGaulle confrontation, in this essay, is a contribution to our field's thinking about dissociation, bolstered with research conducted in the Hoover archive and a sophisticated close reading of the arguments advanced in the Aron-DeGaulle exchange. …

POLITICS Manfred O. Hinz, Sam K. Amoo, and Dawid van Wyk, eds. The Constitution at Work: Ten Years of Namibian Nationhood. [Pretoria]: University of South Africa, VerLoren van Themaat Centre for Public Law, [2002]. Distributed by African Books Collective Ltd., The Jam Factory, 27 Park End St., Oxford 0X1 1HU. 393 pp. Notes. $43.95. Paper. Henning Melber, ed. Reexamining Liberation in Namibia: Political Culture since Independence. Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet, 2003. Distributed by Transaction Publishers. 149 pp. Notes. Bibliography. $24.95. Paper. Both of these books are collections of essays that grew out of conferences held in Windhoek, Namibia. The conferences sought to bring together recognized Namibian and foreign scholars in the fields of law and the social sciences to assess the advances as well as the disappointed hopes of the first decade (1990-2000) of Namibian independence. There has been no dearth of books dealing with the transition to independence in Namibia before it was eclipsed by fascination with the equally difficult passage to African majority rule in neighboring South Africa. In general, the volume devoted to the constitution, edited in part by the dean (Hinz) and the deputy dean (Amoo) of the Faculty of Law at the University of Namibia, tends to be less critical of the current regime than that edited by Henning Melber, the research director of the well-established Nordic Africa Institute in Uppsala, Sweden. This may be due, in some measure, to the fact that several of the contributors to the former are high-level officials of the Namibian government, whereas none of the contributors to the latter holds an official position. Nevertheless, both collections include essays by University of Namibia faculty members. The twenty-nine chapters in The Constitution at Work are distributed over a range of topics, but there is neither a single introductory chapter which collates and synthesizes the various contributions nor an index, so that the reader is left to his or her own devices in terms of data retrieval and organization. One of the chapters, however, does provide a thoughtful survey of the development of the constitution during the first decade of independence. Although there is no bibliography, the chapters are usually-well, sometimes-copiously footnoted, which is a boon to researchers and graduate students. The essays range in quality from fairly pedestrian to exceptional, and most are clearly linked to various facets of the constitution, which was drafted with considerable skill and some international assistance and mentoring. Given the significance, as well as the political delicacy, of land tenure and (re)distribution, three of die chapters are devoted to this question, with some attention to related matters in South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Other laudable chapters cover criminal law, gender, citizenship, the implementation of nondiscrimination norms and jurisprudence, the abolition of torture, the ombudsman's office, the judiciary, the reform of the prison service, and traditional authorities. A number of the essays are comparative, often illustrating corresponding practices and structures in apartheid and postapartheid South Africa. This is especially helpful in light of the colony-metropole relationship that characterized Namibia's relations with South Africa from 1915 until 1990. The Nordic Africa Institute has had a sustained interest in Namibia, and Melber spent a number of years there both before and after independence. From 1992 until 2000 he was the director of the Windhoek-based Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit, a think tank roughly comparable to the Brookings Institution in Washington, D. …

This "concept paper" emerged from a Law and Human Behavior (LHB) Workshop, that was called by the journal's Editor, Richard Wiener, and held at St. Louis University on March 19-21, 1999. This workshop, which brought together 22 scholars and researchers in legal psychology, was part of James Ogloff's Presidential Initiative Project for the American Psychology/Law Society, and was supported by St. Louis University and an NSF grant. Prior to our arrival, each participant answered queries from the Editor about LHB and the field of psychology and law, and each was asked to offer five topics that were underrepresented in the journal or that we would like to see addressed in future issues. At the workshop, we were assigned to small groups, and the authors of this paper constituted one such group. The "charge" for all groups was to "develop plans for encouraging submissions in areas of psycholegal scholarship that continue to be infrequent topics of investigation," and then to develop a concept paper. The direction our group took is captured by our title, "Everyday Life and Legal Values," and within this paper we explicate the topic, identify a number of underrepresented research areas, suggest some research paradigms for investigating them, and present this within a "perspectival directions" frame that ties established lines of research to the newer ones we propose.

The Law is a White Dog: How Legal Rituals Make and Unmake Persons. By Colin Dayan. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. 343 pp. $24.95 paper.Colin Dayan's The Law is a White Dog: How Legal Rituals Make and Unmake Persons is a tour de force of interdisciplinary legal scholar- ship. The book's main objective is, as Dayan puts it, "to ask how law encapsulates, sustains, and invigorates philosophies of person- hood" (p. xii). She approaches this question with the sensibilities of a humanist interested in understanding law's negotiations with those at the edge of the category human-slaves, felons, and animals-and with what she describes as "the obscene made lawful: slavery, torture, indefinite solitary confinement, preventive deten- tion" (p. xii). Given that focus, the book makes a forceful set of moral claims about both the injustices done in these legal negotia- tions and, less sanguinely, about their inevitability.At the dark heart of this critical genealogy and at the center of The Law is a White Dog lies a four-year engagement Dayan under- took with Arizona's prison system: its supermax facilities, its chain gangs, its administrative policies. Witnessing the psychological deci- mation of inmates in such a context provokes Dayan into an analy- sis of the way Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, particularly the Supreme Court's recent interpretations of "cruel and unusual," has left behind concerns of the effects of incarceration on inmates' souls in the attempt to discern and judge officials' states of mind. In those cases, "cruel" comes to be equated not with a felt sense of pain but with malicious intent. Such an emptying out of inmates' identity in that setting provokes Dayan toward a more general investigation of the legal production of "negative personhood." Employing an interdisciplinary approach that emphasizes the constitutive power of legal rhetoric, the inevitable persistence of modes of categorizing entities on the margins, and the magical thinking that conjures and parries otherness when it comes into contact with law, Dayan gives us, through close and careful readings of texts, a history replete with stunningly fresh insights into the transformational violence law inflicts and legitimizes on those it regulates and controls.Ghosts run throughout this book: real ghosts in haunted houses, recognized by courts; sacred apparitions like the white dog that make strange our presumptions about the meaning of identity and threat; ancient legal ideas that haunt contemporary legal logics. Dayan hones in particular on the medieval concepts of civil death, corruption of blood, and the deodand-a thing without consciousness (whether object or animal) to which evil will is imputed and liability imposed.1 This "primitive" model of imposing guilt without assessing individual responsibility persists, Dayan argues, in antebellum decisions concerning the incapacity of slaves to be choosing agents, in gilded age analogies between animals and racialized others, in Eighth Amendment cases concerning state- imposed violence in prisons, and in U. …

POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL LAW: THE STATE OF THE FIELD By Emilie M. Hafner-Burton, David G. Victor, and Yonatan Lupu* The discipline of political science has developed an active research program on the devel- opment, operation, spread, and impact of international legal norms, agreements, and institu- tions. Meanwhile, a growing number of public international lawyers have developed an interest in political science research and methods. 1 For more than two decades, scholars have been call- ing for international lawyers and political scientists to collaborate, and have suggested possible * Emilie M. Hafner-Burton and David G. Victor are Co-directors of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation and Professors at the School of International Relations and Pacific Studies, University of California, San Diego. Yonatan Lupu is a lawyer and a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at UCSD. We thank participants in the “mapping the field” project at the laboratory for detailed research on what political science has learned in various issue areas—including Karl Kruse, Mihaela Papa, Michael Plouffe, and Hallie Stohler. For com- ments on earlier drafts, we thank participants at the UCLA Law School faculty seminar and participants at a review meeting on December 10, 2010, at UCSD—including Kenneth Abbott, Tim Bu¨the, Peter Cowhey, Peter Goure- vitch, Stephan Haggard, Miles Kahler, Robert Keohane, Daniel Klerman, Barbara Koremenos, David Lake, Kat- erina Linos, Edward Mansfield, Lisa Martin, Helen Milner, Jon Pevehouse, Eric Posner, Tonya Putnam, Duncan Snidal, Alan Sykes, and Michael Tomz. Thanks also to Nicole Deitelhoff, Martha Finnemore, and Ann Towns for comments on our second draft, to Linda Wong for editorial assistance, and to Greg Shaffer and Tom Ginsburg for sharing an early draft of their related article, which appears in this same issue of the Journal. Some of these legal works that draw, in part, on political science methods and concepts look across many sub- stantive areas of law and focus on topics such as the role of law in managing economic relations, the effectiveness of law, legitimacy, and game-theoretic perspectives. See, e.g., Jeffrey L. Dunoff & Joel P. Trachtman, Economic Anal- ysis of International Law, 24 Y ALE J. I NT ’ L L. 1, 3 (1999); J ACK L. G OLDSMITH & E RIC A. P OSNER , T HE L IMITS OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW (2005); Jack Goldsmith, Sovereignty, International Relations Theory, and International Law, 52 S TAN . L. R EV . 959 (2000) (book review); Claire R. Kelly, Realist Theory and Real Constraints, 44 V A . J. I NT ’ L L. 545 (2004); Richard A. Falk, The Relevance of Political Context to the Nature and Functioning of Inter- national Law: An Intermediate View, in T HE R ELEVANCE OF I NTERNATIONAL L AW : E SSAYS IN H ONOR OF L EO G ROSS 133 (Karl W. Deutsch & Stanley Hoffmann eds., 1968); J UTTA B RUNN E ´ E & S TEPHEN J. T OOPE , L EGIT - IMACY AND L EGALITY IN I NTERNATIONAL L AW : A N I NTERACTIONAL A CCOUNT (2010); John K. Setear, An Iterative Perspective on Treaties: A Synthesis of International Relations Theory and International Law, 37 H ARV . I NT ’ L L.J. 139 (1996); Jens David Ohlin, Nash Equilibrium and International Law, 96 C ORNELL L. R EV . 869 (2011). Some legal studies, drawing on political science methods and concepts, examine the functioning of legal machinery. See, e.g., John K. Setear, Responses to Breach of a Treaty and Rationalist International Relations Theory: The Rules of Release and Remediation in the Law of Treaties and the Law of State Responsibility, 83 V A . L. R EV . 1 (1997). A large and growing body of legal literature, drawing from political science, focuses on particular issue areas, most notably human rights. See, e.g., Oona A. Hathaway, Do Human Rights Treaties Make a Difference?, 111 Y ALE L.J. 1935 (2002); Laurence R. Helfer, Overlegalizing Human Rights: International Relations Theory and the Commonwealth Caribbean Backlash Against Human Rights Regimes, 102 C OLUM . L. R EV . 1832 (2002). In addition, a large literature addresses the environment. See, e.g., Jutta Brunne´e & Stephen J. Toope, The Chang- ing Nile Basin Regime: Does Law Matter?, 43 H ARV . I NT ’ L L.J. 105 (2002); Eyal Benvenisti, Collective Action in the Utilization of Shared Freshwater: The Challenges of International Water Resources Law, 90 AJIL 384 (1996); Jonathan Baert Wiener, Global Environmental Regulation: Instrument Choice in Legal Context, 108 Y ALE L.J. 677 (1999). Trade law is one among various other areas drawing on political science scholarship. See, e.g., G. Richard Shell, Trade Legalism and International Relations Theory: An Analysis of the World Trade Organization, 44 D UKE L.J. This article is reproduced with permission from the January 2012 issue of the American Journal of International Law © 2012 American Society of International Law. All rights reserved

There is broad recognition, across the political spectrum and in both 'northern' and 'southern' countries, that justice reform, and more generally the promotion of the 'rule of law', are central to development policy, particularly in conflict-affected, fragile and violent contexts. More recently an increased focus on global security and the interaction between security and development as put a renewed emphasis on such efforts. However, while legal, regulatory and 'justice' institutions are now seen as key part of the 'solution' to problems of conflict, fragility and development, this recognition is not matched by a correspondingly clear sense of what should be done, how it should be done, by whom, in what order, or how 'success' may be determined. There often tends to be a clear misunderstanding of both the nature of the problem and (thus) of the solution. In this paper, the author seek to provide some insight into these questions and sketch out a practical conception of effective justice reform in situations of conflict and fragility that may provide the basis for effective programming.

On the night of June 9, 2006, three detainees died in maximum security section of the Guantanamo Bay Detention facility. The military’s initial press releases reported not only that the detainees were found hanging in their cells but also that their actions were a conspiracy as part of “asymmetrical warfare” against the United States. At the same time, the military ordered all media off the island and prevented all lawyers from visiting their clients. Questions immediately arose about how three detainees, under constant supervision, were able to conspire effectively to commit coordinated suicides in non -adjacent cells. In August 2008 a heavily redacted report of the investigation concluded that the detainees had hanged themselves in their cells and that one detainee, while walking the corridors that night, had announced, “tonight’s the night.” The investigation, however, leaves many unanswered questions. Three years later it is still unclear how such coordinated conduct would have occurred, much less how heavily supervised detainees could have been dead for more than two hours before they were discovered. Further, the exact manner of the deaths remain uncertain, and the presence of rags stuffed in the detainees’ throats is unexplained. Negligence of the guards seems to have been ruled out by the absence of any disciplinary action by any military personnel. The guards were formally advised of their right to remain silent, their right to counsel and the fact that anything that they said could be used against them because their original statements were suspected to be false. No such original statement appears in the record and no guard was ultimately charged with either making a false statement or being derelict in his duty. This paper examines the investigation, not to determine what happened that night, but rather to assess why an investigation into three deaths could have could have failed to address significant issues. Further, the report raises serious questions that must be addressed if the government is to dispel rumors that the deaths were the result of something was more sinister than “asymmetrical warfare.” This report reveals the following facts: The original military press releases did not report that the detainees had been dead for more than two hours when they were discovered, nor that rigor mortis had set in by the time of discovery. There is no explanation of how three bodies could have hung in cells for at least two hours while the cells were under constant supervision, both by video camera and by guards continually walking the corridors and responsible for only 28 detainees. There is no explanation of how each of the detainees, much less all three, could have done the following: braided a noose by tearing up his sheets and/or clothing; made a mannequin of himself so it would appear to the guards he was asleep in his cell; hung sheets to block vision into the cell - a violation of Standard Operating Procedures; tied his feet together; tied his hands together; hung the noose from the metal mesh of the cell and wall and/or ceiling; climbed up on the sink; put the noose around his neck and released his weight to result in death by strangulation; and then hung undetected for at least two hours.

A personal response to the Law Commission of England and Wales Consultation Paper 171, Trustee Exemption Clauses, by Mr Gregory Hill (Barrister who appeared in the leading case of Armitage v Nurse). Article published in Amicus Curiae - Journal of the Society for Advanced Legal Studies. The Journal is produced by the Society for Advanced Legal Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London. A brief summary of the proposals in the Law Commission's consultation paper on trustee exemption clauses is included in preliminary matter.

Believing that if general hospitals are pressured into admitting involuntary patients without adequate safeguards, care may deteriorate, the Massachusetts Psychiatric Society drafted a detailed position statement enumerating what resources and services would be required to provide the same high-quality care for involuntary as for voluntary patients. Among other points, treatment of involuntary patients should be considered "psychiatric intensive care," with attention given to the needs for special staffing, training, ancillary services, and funding. To provide high-quality care in the least restrictive environment, separate locked and unlocked units should be provided. Not all involuntary patients can be cared for within a general hospital, the statement says; some require specialized units more appropriately located elsewhere. The general hospital's willingness to accept involuntary patients should be contingent on its being able to control its admissions, and on the hospital's not being the provider of last resort.

It is a daunting assignment to review a book after it has garnered a major award bestowed by the organization that publishes this journal. Judith Baer's Our Lives before the Law not only is a very worthy recipient of the 2000 Victoria Schuck Award for the best book on women in politics but also is an erudite and wide-ranging critique of feminist thought with the goal of "forc[ing] feminists to confront mainstream discourse and mainstream discourse to confront feminism" (p. 175). This goal is in the service of Baer's desire to construct a new jurisprudence of sexual equality, one that avoids the pitfalls Baer perceives as inherent in the efforts of others to date.